Effectiveness of treatment prescribed by GPs: patient assessment

S. Kukkola, M. Erhola, P. Arvio, T. Poussa, P. Kekki
{"title":"Effectiveness of treatment prescribed by GPs: patient assessment","authors":"S. Kukkola, M. Erhola, P. Arvio, T. Poussa, P. Kekki","doi":"10.1017/S1463423610000174","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aim We investigated patients’ impressions of the effectiveness of treatment provided by health centre physicians. Were the patients’ expectations met, and were the consultations considered effective? Which factors affected consultation success? Background The study was conducted in 16 municipalities in the Kanta-Häme region Finland in 2004. Primary healthcare services to these municipalities are provided by five health centres. The municipalities’ total population was 166 648 (31 December 2003). Methods The data were collected during telephone interviews, supplemented by a mail survey. The study population (2600) was drawn from the Finnish Population Information System by random sampling. A total of 1751 inhabitants participated in the study (response rate: 67%). The respondents were considered able to evaluate treatment effectiveness if they had visited a health centre physician because of an illness or an accident during the past 12 months. Seven hundred and twenty-nine respondents met these criteria. Findings Most respondents (73%) found that their treatment corresponded with their expectations. According to a logistic regression analysis, the factors that best explained whether the patient’s treatment expectations were met included the physician’s respect for the patient, the consultation duration and the reason for the visit. Of the respondents, 70% thought the consultation had been effective. Factors explaining consultation effectiveness included consultation duration, physician’s respect for the patient and whether the consultation was scheduled within three days. In conclusion, the physician–patient consultations seemed to be very good and clearly worth the effort. Notably, we observed that the same factors helped to explain whether the patient’s treatment expectations were met, and whether the patient found the consultation effective.","PeriodicalId":20471,"journal":{"name":"Primary Health Care Research & Development","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2010-07-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Primary Health Care Research & Development","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1463423610000174","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim We investigated patients’ impressions of the effectiveness of treatment provided by health centre physicians. Were the patients’ expectations met, and were the consultations considered effective? Which factors affected consultation success? Background The study was conducted in 16 municipalities in the Kanta-Häme region Finland in 2004. Primary healthcare services to these municipalities are provided by five health centres. The municipalities’ total population was 166 648 (31 December 2003). Methods The data were collected during telephone interviews, supplemented by a mail survey. The study population (2600) was drawn from the Finnish Population Information System by random sampling. A total of 1751 inhabitants participated in the study (response rate: 67%). The respondents were considered able to evaluate treatment effectiveness if they had visited a health centre physician because of an illness or an accident during the past 12 months. Seven hundred and twenty-nine respondents met these criteria. Findings Most respondents (73%) found that their treatment corresponded with their expectations. According to a logistic regression analysis, the factors that best explained whether the patient’s treatment expectations were met included the physician’s respect for the patient, the consultation duration and the reason for the visit. Of the respondents, 70% thought the consultation had been effective. Factors explaining consultation effectiveness included consultation duration, physician’s respect for the patient and whether the consultation was scheduled within three days. In conclusion, the physician–patient consultations seemed to be very good and clearly worth the effort. Notably, we observed that the same factors helped to explain whether the patient’s treatment expectations were met, and whether the patient found the consultation effective.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
全科医生处方治疗的有效性:患者评估
目的调查患者对保健中心医生提供的治疗效果的印象。病人的期望是否得到满足?咨询是否有效?哪些因素影响会诊成功?这项研究于2004年在芬兰Kanta-Häme地区的16个城市进行。这些城市的初级保健服务由五个保健中心提供。这些城市的总人口为166 648人(2003年12月31日)。方法采用电话访谈和邮件调查相结合的方法。研究人群(2600人)通过随机抽样从芬兰人口信息系统中抽取。共有1751名居民参与了这项研究(回复率:67%)。如果回答者在过去12个月内因疾病或事故去看过保健中心的医生,则认为他们能够评价治疗效果。729名受访者符合这些标准。大多数答复者(73%)认为他们的待遇符合他们的期望。根据logistic回归分析,最能解释患者治疗期望是否得到满足的因素包括医生对患者的尊重、会诊时间和就诊原因。在受访者中,70%认为谘询是有效的。解释会诊效果的因素包括会诊时间、医生对患者的尊重以及会诊是否安排在三天内。总之,医患磋商似乎非常好,显然值得付出努力。值得注意的是,我们观察到同样的因素有助于解释患者的治疗期望是否得到满足,以及患者是否认为咨询有效。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Health risk appraisal in older people 7: long-acting benzodiazepine use in community-dwelling older adults in London: is it related to physical or psychological factors? Collaborative Care model in mental health. Scope and experiences after three years of activity in Mexico City Health team for the elderly: a feasibility study for preventive home visits Primary care and the public’s health: evidence from service development initiatives Perception of measures for dealing with Ebola disease in primary care
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1